Gauhati High Court
Ruli Ahmed vs The State Of Assam And 2 Ors on 1 October, 2019
Author: Suman Shyam
Bench: Suman Shyam
Page No.# 1/3
GAHC010241872019
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C) 7423/2019
1:RULI AHMED
D/O- LATE DR. ABDUR RASHID, R/O- BYLANE NO.1, HOUSE NO. 59A, NEAR
GANDHINAGAR HIGH SCHOOL, GANDHIBASTI, GUWAHATI- 781003.
VERSUS
1:THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS.
REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM,
SECRETARIAT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI- 781006.
2:THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT
SECRETARIAT
DISPUR
GUWAHATI- 781006.
3:THE DIRECTOR
INLAND WATER TRANSPORT
ASSAM
ULUBARI
GUWAHATI- 781007
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A DEB
Advocate for the Respondent : SC, TRANSPORT
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUMAN SHYAM
ORDER
Date : 01-10-2019 Page No.# 2/3 Heard Mr. A. Deb, learned counsel for the petitioner. I have also heard Mr. Y. Doloi, learned Standing Counsel, Transport Department, Assam, appearing for the official respondents. This writ petition has been preferred against the communication dated 12/09/2019 (Annexure-9 of the writ petition), whereby, the Director, IWT, Assam has asked the petitioner to submit her reply on the notice as to why the "Pontoon Ding Dinga" should not be taken over. The notice was apparently issued in terms of the leave granted by this Court by order dated 27/08/2019 passed in WP(C) No. 1137/2012.
Mr. Deb submits that his client has received the notice but instead of submitting the reply has come before this Court on account of the fact that the notice has also directed the petitioner to handover the possession of the vessel within 30 days, which is in violation of the order dated 27/08/2019 passed by this Court.
Mr. Doloi, learned Standing Counsel, Transport Department, has questioned the maintainability of the writ petition by submitting that instead of submitting her reply, the petitioner has rushed to this Court by filing this writ petition, although no decision has been taken in the matter till today. Mr. Doloi submits that if the reply is furnished by the petitioner, the same would be considered objectively before passing any further order in this case.
The submission of Mr. Doloi is acceptable to this Court. However, the direction contained in the order dated 12/09/2019 to the petitioner to handover the possession of the vehicle within 30 days i.e. even before consideration of the show cause reply, appears to be illegal and in violation of the order dated 27/08/2019 passed by this Court. The matter would, therefore, require further examination.
However, in order to avoid any delay in the matter and as agreed to by the learned counsel for the parties, I dispose of the writ petition by directing the petitioner to submit her reply to the notice dated 12/09/2019 within two weeks from today.
Upon receipt of the reply, the respondents would consider the grievance of the petitioner, if necessary, by giving her a personal hearing and thereafter pass appropriate order disposing of her request for extension/continuance of the lease period of vessel, in accordance with law.
Page No.# 3/3 In the event, the petitioner remains aggrieved with the action of the authorities even thereafter, I will be open for her to avail appropriate remedy as may be permissible under the law.
With the above observation, the writ petition stands disposed of.
JUDGE Sukhamay Comparing Assistant